October 05, 2004
(Updated) On Schulberg's 'On Media' On Weblogs
A Brief Meta-Item To Expand The Discussion
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Normally, we don't involve ourselves in the meta-conversation of weblogs talking about weblogs, but today's Pete Schulberg column in the Portland Tribune makes reference to us in the course of joining the debate over weblogs and journalism, so we have an opportunity (or perhaps an obligation) to offer an expansion of the discussion beyond what Schulberg has to offer.
First, we should say that while we will also make reference to ourselves here, we're trying neither to over-estimate our role nor hype our position in the scheme of things. But the specific item of ours which Schulberg references actually provides something of a counterpoint to much of the rest of his column.
One thing that should be established straight away is that the extremes of this debate tend to generate the most heat and attention -- with one side over-emphasizing weblogs while the other under-emphasizes them. Schulberg himself seems somewhat conflicted on this point, as demonstrated (for example) by his briefly referencing the role weblogs played in the recent CBS News controversy only to dimiss the same as little more than a bunch of "experts" (his quotes) doing little more than "weigh[ing] in ceaselessly." (We'll come back to that particular set of circumstances momentarily.)
On the one hand, Schulberg seems to be careful to couch his criticisms of weblogs in terms such as what "most blogs" do. But he doesn't bother to offer any examples of what the rest of them might be doing, which only serves to leave the reader with the impression that he is on the side of the under-emphasizers.
For starters, read most blogs and you’ll soon find that the majority of topics being discussed, dissected and disseminated are ones that were first reported by the mainstream media. And generally, the sources are newspapers, which have the personnel and the resources to get the story in the first place.
The irony here (and this is where we need to come back to ourselves for a moment) is that the very piece of ours which Schulberg references at the start of his column is an example of precisely the opposite. Our commentary on various polls related to the City Council race represents material original to this site, and the specific piece he mentions went on to be cited by the mainstream media (in Schulberg's own newspaper, for whatever that's worth) -- a flow of coverage counter to what Schulberg (rightly) says "most blogs" do.
(We should also say that we have no idea whether or not Schulberg thinks we are an example of what "most blogs" do, since he remains silent on that point. So this shouldn't be taken as a defense of ourselves against some characterization Schulberg made of us, since he didn't make one.)
We mention this not to call attention to ourselves, but simply to illustrate that while Schulberg might be correct in the strictest sense as to what "most blogs" do, he misses the opportunity to move beyond the artificially-binary discussion of weblogs and journalism by also pointing out what some of the other weblogs do.
And even while Schulberg may be technically correct that "most blogs" depend upon material generated by the mainstream media, he (dis)misses the fact that this doesn't somehow make them unworthy of credit or attention. In the very CBS News controversy he mentions, it was weblogs and other online outlets which pushed back hard enough to force CBS into the corner in which it had found itself -- something that even ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted even as his compatriots in the national news anchor game were stuck making trumped-up and over-simplistic charges that weblogs were simply on a partisan crusade against Dan Rather.
All of that said, it's more important for us to offer interested readers some places to go for a deeper and more considered discussion of the roles weblogs do and do not play in the media world. The most consistently-engaging source for such discussions is Jay Rosen's PressThink, a weblog by "a press critic and writer whose primary focus is the media's role in a democracy."
In recent weeks, Rosen: Has examined CBS News' lack of Internet savvy, arguing that if it had any it could have avoided the severity of the backlash against it and established for itself a new kind of transparency and accountability; and responded to a hit piece against weblogs by a columnist for the Star-Tribune.
Most importantly, and most recently, Rosen suggested that people read what is a far more mindful column by the editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer which tries to move beyond the extremes of this debate. If interested readers take a look at nothing else, they should read Rosen's item on the Chris Satullo column and the Satullo column itself.
That said, we're finished weighing in on the meta-conversation, except for one final comment about what Schulberg seems to suggest "most blogs" do. In general, we do not work in our underwear, since such a thing would be frowned upon, for example, in Council Chambers or at the sites of candidate debates -- although we suppose that would certainly lead to even more attention than we've already managed to receive.
Update
Slight correction, because we mixed up a couple of things. It's not specifically the piece Schulberg mentions that was earlier cited by the Tribune, but one of the slightly-earlier items on polling to which the more current item on polling relates, since it's the same race in question. Our point about the reverse dynamic of news flow, from weblog to mainstream media, remains the same, but we erred as to the specific item in question.
Comments (5)
TomHiggins on 05 Oct 2004
So one of the "professional" local journalists gripes about the new blood doing his "job" better than him?
Hey, no conflict there. He is right. The good blogs, B!x's and Jacks for the Portland sceen, talk more to the point about issues, talk about them to a greater length, and often depth, than a news article can, and they are tied into the topics they write about often in ways "professional" journalists can not or often will not.
The crusty old journalist looking to make the mortage payment by hashing up news events should gripe about blogs. Often times they are in deed a threat to the mediocrity that has come to be local journalism.
Blogs, like anything else, are about 95% pewp..but when you the new age 5 percenters like B!x what you get is amazing.
Sorry Schullberg, sorry that there is an alternative to reading hackneyed hash flung down on dead trees in tatoo of ink and mediocracy.
Actualy Im not sorry. What I am sorry for is that someone like B!x has to beg for money to keep himself in housing and food so he can do the amazing job he does with local news while others get paid a fat paycheck for feck flung foo in the so called Proffesional papers of note.
We should all be sorry for that.
-tomhiggins
Dave Lister on 05 Oct 2004
I think there's a place for all forms of media, including newspapers and weblogs. I read both. The neat thing about the weblogs, though, is that we can post comments immediately, and, unlike letters to the editor, the comments published aren't screened.
TomHiggins on 05 Oct 2004
Dave, I agree. I still read the dead tree issues of many publishing efforts, I make a few from time to time but where zines fit into all this is a whole differnt can of wrigglers...
Now, on to your observations about coments. Heck, I think its one of the reason the hackneryed journalists of print hate blogs and the like. Plain unwashed folks like ye and me can make comments and become part of things in some small way. Its sort of the reaction some Christians give when they learn about the Talmud... Yea, commentary is go.
Often you will hear the traditonal journalist go on about the weariness of the blogosphere. No surpirsie there. When all that was required before was to pound out a tact of text, publish and grab a paycheck life was simpler. Yea you get the crackpots who write letters to the editors, but a good sifter can squelch the pesky fact checking ones or the callers of bad form. On blogs though that luxuriant comfort zone go bye bye.
Heck, they even have to slog through horrible spelling and questionable gramar. Lawds save em.
hi ho
-tomhiggins
Kari Chisholm (Politics & Technology) on 06 Oct 2004
What's most extraordinary about all of this is the way that the journalism community is simultaneous over-hyping and slamming the blogging phenomenon - and all the while going on breathlessly and endlessly about blogs.
Maybe it's the well-known penchant of the media for discussing themselves that causes the 98% of the commentary that's idiotic. Or maybe they just don't get it.
I can't help think of the recent Oregonian/OregonLive.com radio commercials in which the announcer points out that a classified ad bought for the paper edition also can be viewed around the world "through the whiz-bang technology of the internet." Really...
Anyway, it strikes me that there are MANY different kinds of dead-tree journalism - from news services like AP, to stodgy daily papers, to alt-weeklies, to alt-alt-rocker rags, to intellectual quarterly publications, to thoughtful monthly commentary magazines, to idiotic supermarket tabloids.
No surprise: that same diversity is found online in the blogging world. The only problem? No one has a well-defined or strong enough brand yet to help readers figure out who's Atlantic Monthly and who's Weekly World News.
"Most" blogs are very different than the Communique - and very different than BlueOregon.com too... Lumping them all in together is a silly prospect - and serious journalists wouldn't go there. Instead, they'd examine blogs critically, develop a typology and topology of the blogosphere, avoid breathless bewilderment, and point out the good stuff while ignoring/slamming the bad.
Grrr.
Betsy on 06 Oct 2004
It's interesting - I'm a creature of old media, yet spent a large part of the 90's and 00's evangelizing about 'new media' to those who fail to understand how the internet (not just blogs) has fundamentally altered the way we use and consume media.
For better or worse, we're not going back - although I've heard Schulberg's hysteria voiced by others in his shoes, from the early 90's (well before the advent of weblogs - about things like Usenet newsgroups...private websites...message boards...and, now, blogs) to the present.
If 'old media' would get a clue (and some do), they'd understand that it's a symbiotic relationship, and do their best to harness and/or tap into the flow. You see The Oregonian beginning to do this with their Iraq weblog, for example (although there is much that could be said about The 0's relationship with their 'cousin' site OregonLive and where the pants ought to be in that relationship...)
Again, for better or worse, human behavior has shifted. The information flow has moved from top -down or one-way to two-way. Readers not only consume, but create content (think of how the buzz about the pentium chip flaws on Usenet message boards - once aggregated - revealed that Intel had a disaster on their hands.) People expect information in real-time, to be able to slide and dice it on demand, and to either skim the surface and/or go way deep if they so choose.
And they increasingly want opinion and analysis offered alongside their impartial news (which I think is a side-effect of the info-glut we all deal with - a desire to get news from 'trusted' or 'agreed-with' sources when time is short.)
Finally, they want to hear/see their 'peers.' Why else the over-focus on polling results...focus groups...and even reality television shows/game shows?
Smart media people will figure out how to jump on the bandwagon - or harness the energy.
Out-of-date media people will wring their hands and whine about the bloggers in their underwear.
Three guesses which camp Schulberg falls into...